Posted
by
timothyon Friday October 18, 2013 @08:38PM
from the no-all-who-wander-are-lost dept.

An anonymous reader with a snippet from Politico: "A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers. Yale law professor Dan Kahan posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative. However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn't, Kahan found. The findings met the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor said. Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him. 'I've got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I'd be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,' Kahan wrote. 'But then again, I don't know a single person who identifies with the tea party,' he continued.'"More at the Independent Journal Review.

A lot of private practice Drs and Dentists back the tea party, as they vote single issue - lowering the taxes on their $300k+ incomes. Medical degrees and certifications are of course lumped in the science bucket so probably make up a large part of the total. They tend to dislike welfare programs such as medicaid and medicare too, as they cut into their profit margins.

"This is only surprising if your idea of who supports the Tea Party segment of the Republican Party comes from MSNBC. Hint: most aren't social conservatives."

Perhaps even less surprising when you realize that the Tea Party itself did not identify with Republicans. It is true that they leaned somewhat conservative but there was a significant portion of liberals in their ranks, too.

The (modern) group that originally called itself the Tea Party was as fed up with the Republican Party as it was with the Democratic Party. It wasn't until later that the Republicans usurped their banner.

You are almost right. The association with republicans leans from the fact that most of the tea party objections to the parties line up with the facade the republicans would put forward to get elected but forget about once in office. This was highlighted enormously with the bank bailouts, the GM bailouts, and the slush fund created under the guise of the stimulus in which the tea party movement more or less was created.

In short, it was easier to hijack the republican party then to create a new party and complain that they don't get any respect like the libertarians and the greens party do. (note, that isn't a jolt on the libertarians or the greens, it is just an explanation of what was happening). This is what Obama is so pissed at, it is what McCain the maverick who lost against Obama was pissed at, and what the talking heads in the MMS echoed but failed to grasp. A group of people outside the system are successfully using the system to demand change and they call themselves the tea party.

Sorry, but that's backward There is no way an "independent" party could "hijack" the enormous Republican party. The very idea is laughable. If they could have, there would have been no need for a third party at all. They could have just joined the Republicans and then reformed the party.

One of the biggest reasons the libertarian and Green Parties get glossed over is that about 80% of their platforms are functionally identical or compatible to existing platforms of other parties. The problem for them is that the differences that do remain are showstoppers for them to be in those other platforms. The tea party movement realized that infiltrating one of those parties would allow changes like when the Christian Coalition took over the republicans at one point in time.

The Republicans realized that the Tea Party (which, again, contained a significant number of former liberals) was actually trying to do what the Republicans SAID they were doing for decades, but not actually doing. This could have been devastating to the Republican party. So the Republican donned the masks of the Tea Party and pretended to be them. Successfully. And some of them are even halfway serious about it.

That might be more believable if the Tea Party had not challenged republicans who held safe seats in government during the primaries just to lose the general election to political adversaries. What you are claiming would require the republicans to actually defeat themselves in an attempt to make themselves win under a false pretense. That's a little like a bank robber asking the cops to drive the get away car at his next heist.

But make no mistake: this isn't the original Tea Party, even though some people have hung on. You will find no liberals there. You will probably find a lot of rhetoric about smaller government and lower taxes, but little real action.

I think the recent government shut down proves you wrong on this. It was ineffective action but if you paid attention to the contents of Ted Cruze's speeches or the speeches of the Tea Party members who were behind it, you would understand that they did it specifically because the people asked them too do something.

Just watch cruze's concession speech before the vote to end the shutdown and pay attention to what is being said before injecting your ideological opinions of the content.

So you suggest that the republican party put on masks and pretended to be tea part members for some sort of gain. What type of gain have they received? what gain has the republicans received when it only divided the party showing the difference between the establishment and the tea party conservatives? Your own president marks a clear distinction between the two, so which is it? One in the same or two separate movements?

"One of the biggest reasons the libertarian and Green Parties get glossed over is that about 80% of their platforms are functionally identical or compatible to existing platforms of other parties."

Just no. First, the Greens are primarily a one-issue party. And second, while there are a few vague similarities between Libertarian values and the Republican platform, they are not even remotely the same. Especially when you consider that even when it comes to those similarities, the Republicans over the last few decades have been almost all talk and no walk. 80% is way, WAY off. If you are measuring actions, rather than words, try 10%.

Not that I blame you personally. The Libertarian party is widely misunderstood, in part precisely because of misinformation from both the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats, in particular, have frequently characterized Libertarians as being "far right", when nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, it's not even close. The Republicans, on the other hand, simply try to marginalize the Libertarians, because the Libertarians really mean what the Republicans only pretend, when it comes to "smaller government". (But again, that's only a part of the Libertarian platform.)

"That might be more believable if the Tea Party had not challenged republicans who held safe seats in government during the primaries just to lose the general election to political adversaries. What you are claiming would require the republicans to actually defeat themselves in an attempt to make themselves win under a false pretense. That's a little like a bank robber asking the cops to drive the get away car at his next heist."

You are arguing against yourself, and and making MY argument for me. Tea Partiers running against Republicans? Then how could Republicans BE Tea Partiers? This is actually part of my own argument. The Republicans saw the writing on the wall. They saw they were getting stiff opposition so they leaned in the direction the wind was blowing. But even those Tea Party principles they claim to have adopted, they adopted in weakened form. And they only did so because they were being challenged by the Tea Party.

"I think the recent government shut down proves you wrong on this. It was ineffective action but if you paid attention to the contents of Ted Cruze's speeches or the speeches of the Tea Party members who were behind it, you would understand that they did it specifically because the people asked them too do something."

No shit. I repeat: they saw the writing on the wall, and saw that the American public was highly supportive of the Tea Party. So they do those things. There is no conflict or contradiction there with what I was saying. Example: Ron Paul ran on the Republican ticket, yet few people would mistake him for anything but a Libertarian (although he does hold a few typical Republican values that conflict with Libertarian values). On the other hand, I don't think anybody would mistake Ted Cruz for anything but a Republican.

"So you suggest that the republican party put on masks and pretended to be tea part members for some sort of gain. What type of gain have they received? what gain has the republicans received when it only divided the party showing the difference between the establishment and the tea party conservatives? Your own president marks a clear distinction between the two, so which is it? One in the same or two separate movements?"

I'm not "suggesting" it. It's a statement of fact. Look it up. They had to adopt "Tea Partier" principles or lose elections. It's that simple.

The Republicans realized that the Tea Party (which, again, contained a significant number of former liberals) was actually trying to do what the Republicans SAID they were doing for decades, but not actually doing. This could have been devastating to the Republican party. So the Republican donned the masks of the Tea Party and pretended to be them. Successfully. And some of them are even halfway serious about it.

And that's exactly how the Tea Party hijacked the Republican party. Same thing happened with the

What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism. Which is strange because it's not in their platform and I haven't heard any Tea-Partiers mention it. But it comes back down to what the person who ran this analysis said, many "don't know a single person who identifies with the tea party."

What is hear on the news (CNN, the Daily Show) or from my family is the Tea Party is mostly about bringing back racism.

Well, there you go. CNN has a political bias that is showing, and "The Daily Show" IS A COMEDY PROGRAM. It is Jon Stewart's cash cow. It isn't intended to be news, it is intended to keep his paycheck coming writ large. If you rely on either or both for your news, well, you're not getting the whole, or necessarily true, story. It's like taking a Jay Leno monologue at face value.

Perhaps the fact that CNN International carries "The Daily Show" might point you to the idea that CNN isn't trying to be a news channel anymore, if it ever was. It was Ted Turner's brainchild. The same Ted Turner who married Jane Fonda. The same Jane Fonda who visited the Viet Cong and made pals with them by denouncing the US, while the Viet Nam war was still going on. There can't be any biases in anything they do, can there?

In other words you almost never meet them because you are so insular - I know your type; you are the type I would not tell I am a Tea Party member because you would automatically turn against me without thought, and you'd never suspect me of belonging because my views don't match up with your bigoted notions of Tea Party members.

Oh no, I wouldn't. Honest. If you launch into an unsolicited 45 minute long lecture about ``Fucking Obama is trampling my rights again!'' when you get a parking ticket, then I'm not going to want to be around you. Otherwise, we'd be cool. But as of yet, I've never met any self-identifying TP member who didn't do that.

It's a shame that there are even some people I consider good friends who I cannot admit to being fiscally conservative, because I see how unhinged you become at the thought of any kind of conservative in your ranks...

Christ, you act as if you're about to admit that your gay to a bunch of Muslims or something. Get over the persecution complex.

Something to chew on is that Tea Party members are WAY more tolerant of alternative viewpoints than you are; we have to be.

Hmmm..... Let's look at the behavior and voting records of the members of Congress that are part of the Tea Party....

The Social Conservatives are just the people more used to being loathed by people like you so they don't mind telling you what they are.

And they deserve it, mostly for not being honest with themselves about what their vision for the future really is.

You have to differentiate between party heads and supporters. Among supporters of any party are all kind of cooks, who happen to think that the particular party will get their issues resolved. I don't know much about tea partiers, because I don't live in the US and never have except for a brief 4 month period, but I'll draw a parallel with a situation I do know:

A certain party that is economically conservative, anti-corruption, and socially liberal is being flambasted by mainstream media for being populist, ultra-conservative, and destructive. It's a long discussion on why it is so, but you'll have to trust me on this, because my point is what follows. Because this party was marginalized by mainstream media and mainstream politicians and big business (hint: they really are anti-corruption), the marginalized elements of society who are indeed ultraconservative socially and feel marginalized ended up being the strongest supporters of this party as a social group. These ultracons really are quite dumb, but they have noone else to vote for and they really want to vote for someone, because they're undeniably patriotic.

My evidence for the party being socially liberal is that when it was in power and could easily ban all types of abortion (as its ultra-conservative constituent would like), it did not. And it did this to such an extent that it tolerated a number of MPs leaving the party to form a new socially ultraconservative party based on this abortion issue alone. My conclusion on this is that when media manipulate the image a political movement wants to project, they end up recruiting for that movement a group of people who identify with the marginal viewpoints while deterring the ones who really should be supporting the movement. This actually mutates the movement and renders it sterile. It's sad, but mainstream politics and media probably know very well that they are doing this and they will continue to do it.

If you want some hints on where I have my example from, I'll tell you that the current party leader's brother died in a plane crash while serving as president of the country.

The Tea Party appeared after Obama was elected because Obama is of the far-left and the Republican Party doesn't give a shit about ordinary Americans. Obama's mentor - the man who had the most influence on his life - should have gone to prison for bombing the US Capitol building. Yes, that's right, domestic terrorism of the Boston Bomber sort.

After the NSA revelations, who can really say that martial law is out of the question? The NSA stuff confirmed what a lot of "nutters" had been saying for a long time.

You're a prime example of why nobody besides the Tea Party is taking the Tea Party seriously. According to the standard political spectrum that the entire world has used for decades (at least), Obama is near-right and moving further to the right every year. If you ever met an actual "lefty" I have a feeling your brain would literally implode from an inability to comprehend what you're seeing. They're still around in Canada and Europe, if you want to observe some in the wild.

Everyone knows that the Tea party is a bunch of comic, laughable clowns with no grounding in reality. I mean, why else would they be so thoroughly lampooned using derogatory terms and snarky, dismissive comments.

Everyone knows that the Tea party is a bunch of comic, laughable clowns with no grounding in reality.

Not at all. From outside the US, particularly from places like Europe where we have suffered when countries like extreme right wing political parties get out of control they look dangerous. The finding that they actually know science and reality but choose to reject it makes them scarier. I'd be far happier if I thought that all they lacked was education instead of medication.

I'd be surprised too, as the Tea Baggers tend to think that climate change is some kind of made up science (Yale Climate Change Study [yale.edu]).

However, that result is consistent with the other study [yale.edu] which showed that people who hold a strong position only get more certain of that position as the get more information, regardless of what the information says. So you'd expect more scientifically-informed climate deniers to deny more strongly than less-informed client deniers.

It's also worth pointing out that the Tea Party movement as such has no position on climate change at all.

I think it's a little more complicated. Tea baggers don't like taxes, and don't like agencies that regulate by wasting money or levying fines The EPA is a big target, since they tell you not to do stuff and then fine you.EPA and environmentalism in general is a huge target, since the financial benefits are not readily calculable. Climate change is a huge scale, which seems almost impossible that people could do.

Incalculable benefit on such a large scale leads to discounting it as nonsense. That is when

The stereotypical Tea Partier is, for me, somebody who is professional, a high achiever who believes that most, if not all of that is due to their own merit. They might be really good at science and math; but they're short on compassion and unwilling to admit that they benefited in their youth from programs that are socialist. It doesn't surprise me one bit that they'd be more scientifically literate than average. Scientific knowledge isn't everything when it comes to leadership, management, politics, etc.. In fact, I'd me inclined to say it isn't worth much at all in those positions. Face it. The squishy "human factors" matter.

The absolute smallest amount possible, after everything else has been tried.

When government is actually helping people, it's often not necessary to threaten people to get their money. Roads can be built with money from the road users' fuel taxes. Air traffic control can be paid for by taxing fliers' airline tickets. Food inspections can be paid by taxing food -- and if it's too expensive to pay the tax, let people buy un-inspected food or food certified by non-government inspectors, like the guys who cer

That wasn't non-sequitur, it was a perfect argument rebuffing your comment. No taxes (money taking by force) means no government, means anarchy.

Lack of compassion is the exact problem of the - everybody for themselves, I'll give to charity if I want to help - crowd, they are usually well off and do not understand and relate to the plights of people who are not. It is not about advocating against violence, just violence against them. They are perfectly willing to use violence to keep people hungry, poorly ed

Everyone is run through those "programs", and only some come out as high achievers and well-paid professionals. If the program were the cause, then everyone would come out the same.

Flawed logic. Take a group, and give them all the benefit of a socialist program, like government financed education. Some will do better than others, which is at least closer to a meritocracy than would otherwise be the case. Eliminate that socialist program, and only the well off will be able to afford a decent education for their children. You now have a system that is based more on your parent's wealth than your merit. Hence people who believe they've done well because of their merit, and believe that's what success should be based on, should be in favor of such a socialist program.

Let's see. Everyone is run through those "programs", and only some come out as high achievers and well-paid professionals. If the program were the cause, then everyone would come out the same. Maybe there is something to the concept that some people are different than others and they can excel because of who they are and not the socialist programs they were subjected to?

SERIOUSLY? Even within my small home town of 10,000, the quality of public school that you went to was pretty directly related to how wealthy your parents were. The school that all the doctors' and lawyers' kids went to? Renovated every 10 years, 20 or less kids per class, teachers' aides in every room, a number of gifted programs, and a lab full of modern PCs, along with PCs in every room, laptop carts, smart white boards, etc. But if you lived in one of the apartment complexes behind the mall you were going to the school where the bricks were falling off and the classes were packed and with few additional programs and your tech classes were taught on shared Apple IIes. In the same school district in the same town.

By highschool all of those schools filtered together...and you know what? I went to the elementary school with all the rich kids, and in highschool guess who I saw in all my AP classes, all my advanced math and science and such? The vast majority were the same kids I'd gone to elementary with -- even though there were six elementary schools in the district.

The problem isn't that these "socialist" programs don't work. The problem is that they aren't actually socialist.

The stereotypical Tea Partier is, for me, an unemployed truck driver in front of the Capitol Building holding an effigy of Obama and a sign with racist epithets. I'm not trolling here; it's what a lot of people saw during the early days of its "coming out" on the cable news networks 4-5 years ago.

You should probably learn the difference between what's on television, and what is reality. You have just described a Democrat voter -- because your unemployed truck driver is probably a Teamster who votes Democrat because his union does.

I am a college graduate, a business owner, and I was Tea Party before you ever heard of it.

Stereotypes can be useful things, but only if you pull your head out of your ass and get them right.

If you read a bit more than the review article you find that scores on the test of scientific literacy they used is highly correlated with years of education. Since the tea party is heavily skewed toward older white males you'd expect them to have more years of education than the general population. Years of education was not controlled for.

Breaking News: Researcher assumes those he disagrees with and doesn't like are ignoramuses. Is shocked when he finds out they aren't.

People who think about politics and issues enough to join up with a nonmainstream group are often brighter and better informed than average. (Regardless of the wisdom of the positions they adopt.) The average types tend to stay in the parties they grew up with.

I figured out in college that there were smart and dumb people (and informed and ignorant and good and evil ones) on all sides of pretty much any political question. That left emotions as the key issue, and it has never ceased to amaze and depress me how many people think of politics in the the most primitive, emotional ways: name-calling, tribalization, and tons of logical fallacies, all in the service of flinging feces at the Evil Others Who Don't Vote The Right Way.

The Tea Party is an interesting case in point. Their views, boiled down, amount to 1) the federal government should stick to its Constitutional powers, and 2) not spend more money than it has. Those are hardly extreme notions, but you'd never know it from the vicious attacks on them. This is not to say that every Tea Partier is correct on everything, or that their aren't nuts and unsavory types among them, but any political division that encompasses roughly 25-30% of the population will have some nuts and unsavory types.

So I don't find this result terribly surprising, but the people who think Tea Partiers are all ignorant racist/sexist/fascist/homophobes will certainly be surprised.

Final note: anyone interested in the psychology of political belief should check out the work of Jonathan Haidt [wikipedia.org], particularly his work on moral foundations theory. No matter what you believe politically, it will help you understand why the people who disagree with you think the way they do.

Ron Paul types are idealists, not your "normal" Republicans. We don't think of Ron Paul as a TPer, but that's only because he's so extreme. He's also a bit weird (i.e. mystical) which is why he stayed in that party.

The anti-science people are merely Republicans. There's actually very little conservative about them, and when you ask them about certain aspects of government relationship with people, they'll go left of Stalin and insist upon an extremely authoritarian police state that tells people what to do.

Then there are the non-mystics. They know about science, because science is the only way anyone has ever come up with, for understanding Anything; it turned out that everyone else (the non-scientists) were always lying about everything they said. So of course, they're informed. Not extremely informed, just better than average (remember: average is a pretty low bar). And a lot of them are idealists too. And.. get this.. some of them go with non-planned economies, really thinking that a free market algorithm will tend to find some fairly good optima (and by "fairly good" they mean something superior to everything you've ever seen in real life). So they become Tea Partiers.

That isn't to say all non-mystics become TPers; some believe in Philosopher Kings instead. If only we put unbelievable amounts of power into the hands of the best planners, they'll do Good. And also do better than anything you've ever seen in real life.

And then there's the other 90% of the population, who believe in mysticism. They split between Republican and Democrat however their parents did. And then they (incorrectly) label themselves as conservatives or liberals, or sometimes even become their self-assigned right/left labels through the power of cognitive dissonance. But without the idealism or any intellectual component at all. So they'll project anti-mysticism by knowing about evolution or global warming, but they're really doing it as dogma, not science. They just happen to be correct, as a matter of luck. Had they been told to believe in Body Thetans, they would.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he is suggesting that progressives (educated scientifically literate liberals) want a philosopher king. Woodrow Wilson could be considered the prototype of such a king. An authoritarian schoolmaster if there ever was one. Willing to trample the rights of the individual to make the correct decision *for* that individual. The fact he was very well educated and probably right quite a large portion of the time doesn't alleviate the effects of removing individual responsibility and freedom upon creative thought.

And the notion that a greedy optimization algorithm like a anarcho-capitalist pure free market is so incredibly elegant that it must work, neglects the nasty inelegant humans that are part of that market and screw everything up. If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter how elegant it is. I think that is the mysticism the gp was talking about. The faith Ron Paul has placed in elegant ideas often involves handwaving and appeals to common sense, rather than empircal tests. I think that is somewhat unfair as he does cite historical incidents, he just has different interpretations from his detractors. Also doing correctly scaled economic tests that control for all the variables is impossible. Still, he's kinda handwavy even compared to economists.

Ron Paul isn't mystical at all. He's very easy to understand if you look at his policies, effectively to sell everything tax payers have built to the highest bidder, including national parks, other lands, infrastructure... He's a corporation friendly capitalist. He talks big when it comes to free markets and non-coercion, but if you really consider what would unfold should his policies be put into place, sell everything to the rich, he's a just a crazy white old Texan that doesn't give a toss about people t

The anti-science people are merely Republicans. There's actually very little conservative about them, and when you ask them about certain aspects of government relationship with people, they'll go left of Stalin and insist upon an extremely authoritarian police state that tells people what to do.

What is it about Americans that they don't recognize that right wing conservatives can be just as authoritarian as left wing socialists. They both come in extremes including the extreme authoritarian types who push their workd view on you whether you want it or not. General Pinochet is a good example of a right wing free trader who was definitely a tyrant. Nelson Mandela is an example of a left winger who was not a tyrant.Personally I've always been more scared of Conservatives as they like to use government to control peoples behaviour in all aspects including money whereas socialists usually just want to control peoples money witrh the left wanting to spread it around and the right wanting to hog it all.There's a reason that conservatives (called Tories) were tarred and feathered during the American Revolution and then driven out of the country. I'd like to drive the Tories out of my government as well.

You don't get to redefine political terms on the fly to mean something utterly different than what the rest of the world understands them to mean. If you do that then you might as well start calling the sky yellow and grass grey, because it amounts to the same thing, which is Orwellian doublespeak a la "Freedom is Slavery" and "War is Peace."

Here is the standard understanding of the political spectrum [wikipedia.org], since you don't seem to know what that is, or because you're being cute, "According to the simplest left-

I think that means "they know just enough to be dangerous". Perhaps on occasion little knowledge is worse than none at all.That said, I do not find Tea Party supporters laughable at all. On the contrary - I think they are dead serious, and quite scary.

News anchors and columnists still think anyone that isn't in the Democratic Party is a bible thumping, gun clinging, racist hillbilly. And their view is what gets spread to people in big cities who never experienced a tea party member for themselves. No surprise then that the researcher was surprised that tea party members have a large nerd contingent. We weren't surprised because we've seen them here on/. quite a bit.

The reason Newton, Kepler, Copernicus believed the "world was made in 6 days" is because they lived before plate tectonics, Darwin and carbon dating.

There is nothing incompatible about religious faith and science. Lots of great science has been done by mystics. You mention Newton, and he was an alchemist and believer in scrying and other occult practices too. Nobody would mistake him for a circa 2013 American Christian F

My co-worker is a Tea Party advocate, and I generally consider him bright, although a tad stubborn.

His issue with "science" is that he believes people in general are motivated by their wallet; and climate science, for example, is allegedly heavily biased toward "alarmist" results in order to justify yet more studies of a (allegedly fake) growing threat. If there are no fires, then nobody hires fire-fighters.

And evolutionists are allegedly biased to "deny a creator" so that they can sin without penalty. He knows all the usually down-side talking points, like the Piltdown fraud, the relatively suddenness of the Cambrian Explosion, few if any new phyla since then, etc.

Complex topics are difficult to verify on one's own and one has often has to rely on expert interpretation of fossils, weather patterns, etc.

Perhaps if he really dug into the topics, he'd see the stronger evidence, but it's not his interest to do such. He likes military history the most and reads only cursory articles on science-related topics, usually from biased sources. You are not going to "get to the bottom" of the topic that way.

As a semi-side note, I once wanted to "get to the bottom" of the UFO mystery and purchased many books on the topic from both sides. Unfortunately I still can't come to a conclusion. The skeptics don't make a good enough case to stop exploring UFO's. I consider it an "open mystery" still. Not everything has an available answer. I would note that the top skeptics surprisingly don't claim witnesses to the top cases are lying, but rather propose psychological explanations. But those explanations are odd, full of a few contradictions, and untested.

The tea-partiers may or may not understand science, but, fortunately for the future of our democratic republic, they are manifestly ignorant of the legislative process, which is why they just got their heads handed to them on a platter in the U.S. Congress.

The clearest example of the bizarrely naive quality of hermetic liberal provincialism was attributed to the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael almost 40 years ago, and has been discussed in right-wing circles ever since. It went something like this: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”... more [commentarymagazine.com]

To cold_fjord: Your quoted article doesn't touch on any of the background, but it touches on an example of how history -- if not actually repeating itself -- often rhymes [wikipedia.org].

A key component of Nixon's victory had to do with the schism in the Democratic party that formed in the late 1940's to 50's between the Northern Democrats (your "hermetic liberal provincialism", which sought to embrace the burgeoning Civil Right movement), and the Southern Dixiecrats [wikipedia.org] (who portrayed themselves as primarily opposed to the e

You spelled "know" incorrectly. Besides, it is the opposite political philosophy from the Tea Party crowd that have "magical thinking" about how things work. Mostly they just want centralized government to do less.

You like your computer networks decentralized, why not your government? Local is better.

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes - Excessively high taxes are a burden for those exercising their personal liberty to work hard and prosper as afforded by the Constitution. A fiscally responsible government protects the freedom of its citizens to enjoy the fruits of their own labor without interference from a government that has exceeded its necessary size, scope and reach into the lives of its citizens.

Taxes in excess of those required to fulfill constitutional mandates. Easy.

"Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs. And once you start cutting programs you run into the problem that SOMEONE thinks that that particular is not "excessive"."

Yes indeed, this is how dirty politics works. Everyone votes for the whole pile of pork in order to keep the one program that actually benefits them personally. The weight of all the unproductive expenditures drags down the economy as a whole and makes the nation poorer, but the 'elite' who are already rich and well connected will still manage to get richer by diverting the lions share of those expenditures even while the rest of us struggle to keep our heads above water.

The only solution is to kill all the pork in one swipe. Most people will give up their own slice, as long as everyone else does the same simultaneously. But no one is going to willingly give up their slice, however pathetic, without getting a refund on the rest of the pork at the same time.

Yes indeed, this is how dirty politics works. Everyone votes for the whole pile of pork in order to keep the one program that actually benefits them personally.

The continuing resolution that reopened the government contained lots of pork, according to this. [dailykos.com] Another article talked about a spending increase of $1.2 billion. It's hard to tell, because the money is hidden in the final bill [thehill.com] as amendments to previous legislation, saying things like "in place of the number X substitute bigger number Y."

This is a continuing resolution that is supposed to be continuing the previous budget until a new one can be worked out. And wasn't supposed to be negotiated at all. Senate Democrats balked at the first CR that contained extraneous legislation, but this one was just fine. Nobody wanted to deny the widow of Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) her $174,000 payout.

Unfortunately, the constitution gives the army no justification for patrolling the skies.

A reasonable person would say that the army should be able to extend their abilities, but I'm just following the platform here. No justification in the constitution for protecting the skies. Not even a mention of the sky in the whole document!

Fundamentally incorrect. Just because a technology improves does not mean the Constitution prevents its implementation.

I don't see this in the constitution. I however, see navy clearly spelled out.

However, I challenge anyone to find Social Security in the Constitution.

Let's short circuit my straw man and get to the real meat of this.

The constitution didn't give women the right to vote. Blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person. There were no Presidential term limits.

"But!" says the tea partier "The constitution gives us the ability to modify it! The founding fathers intended that to deal with future situations that they couldn't foresee! All those things were all good amendments!" And the tea partier would be right.

But then we get to other amendments. The amendments, that for example, give the government the power to create programs such as social security (Amendment 16). Or we get into topics like the Constitution permiting the repealment of the second amendment, entirely legally and under the system the founding fathers set up. "No!" says the tea partier. "We can't do this things! These things weren't intended by the founding fathers! They wrote the constitution specifically as they did as a guidepost for this country!"

And this is when the tea party ceases to be an organization that is an advocate for the founding father or the constitution. Like any other political organization, they have ideas they like, and ideas they don't like. The difference is, they use the founding fathers as puppets for their goals when it suits them. The Constitution says nothing about protecting the skies, yet sane and reasonable people agree that it probably implies that would be ok, even though the founding fathers had never seen an airplane. The Constitutional also says nothing for or against social security, and in fact a later amendment permits it. We, as a country, have decided that the Constitution allows for social security as well. Yet to a tea partier, the air force is totally ok 100% implied by the constitution (even though it says nothing specifically about an air force) yet social security is not (even though the Constitution also says nothing about permitting an air force.)

The amendments, that for example, give the government the power to create programs such as social security (Amendment 16)

There is nothing in that amendment that states that the government can create social security. Just about levying an income tax and not having to give the money to the states.

Or we get into topics like the Constitution permiting the repealment of the second amendment, entirely legally and under the system the founding fathers set up. "No!" says the tea partier. "We can't do this things! These things weren't intended by the founding fathers! They wrote the constitution specifically as they did as a guidepost for this country!"

Your wrong. A tea-partier would not say that we can't get rid of the 2nd. A tea-partier would argue with you though on why shouldn't get rid of it. Theres a big difference between saying we can't do something and we shouldn't do something.

As to the air-force, well it may be unconstitutional. But the great thing about the constitut

There's also the basic problem with your understanding of how a law is determined to be Constitutional. Laws are only unconstitutional if the Constitution disallows for something. The Constitution doesn't have to specifically allow me to write a blog (and it doesn't). Rather, if a law was made that no one could write blogs, that law would be found to be unconstitutional because the Constitution outright bans that sort of law.

You've flipped the argument, which isn't how the Constitution works. You're arguing that the Constitution is a document which allows laws, instead of being a document that bans laws. You're trying to argue that the Constitution says nothing about allowing social security and therefore social security is not a valid law, but in fact the burden of proof is on you to find where the Constitution bans social security. That's how the legal system in this country works, and is how the Constitution is observed.

First, that "Tea Party Platform" isn't THE Tea Party Platform, it's just one that some guy put together as a suggestion. There is no "official" platform, even though you can probably get most Tea Party members to agree with what's in it.

"Exactly what are 'excessive taxes?'"

Historically, the United States works quite well with a lower tax scheme - somewhere between 15% and 19% of GNP, and seems best around 18%. Every percentage point above 19, and the economy starts hurting. Every percentage point below 15, and we start having to cut essential services. Remember that "taxes" includes Federal and state and city-level taxes.

In short, '"excessive taxes" are the ones that reach the level where the US, as a whole, start saying "hey, that's too much money for what we get out if it." We passed that mark a long time ago.

"Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs."

Yeah, but which programs? There are a LOT of programs, and quite a few of them are nowhere near necessary. Cowboy Poetry festivals, bridges to nowhere, shrimp running on treadmills, et cetera. Yeah, each of those are "small," but there are literally thousands of them. That adds up.

You might also note that most real Tea Party folks agree that we spend too much on the military - on the waste, that is. Medicare reform is also good, due to massive Medicare waste. Look up what the Tea Party folks are actually saying - and don't look at HuffPo or Kos for your quotes.

In other words, the Tea Party you have in your head isn't the Tea Party that actually exists.

You might have noticed that we had a "government shutdown" recently, in which only 17% of the actual government shut down. And almost nobody noticed outside of the bureaucrats who had to spend a week or so at home. People complained about the "losses" of the shutdown, but a fair amount of that "loss" was "money we didn't spend." We also just took out another $328 billion in loans to keep spending.

You don't think we could lost 5% or 10% of the US government without noticing? The last couple of weeks show that we can.

900,000 furloughed. WIC/Food Stamps/NIH/NASA/CDC and many many others furloughed.
And taxes, right now, are rhe lowest in half a century. Especially corporate but also income taxes. Guess what doesn't go away without revenue? Debt. Guess what doesn't work like your household debt? Government debt. Government debt is not all bad, a lot of it is actually healthy.
Oh, and we kept spending during the shutdown, so it wasn't even a good cost saving measure.

Because once you start cutting revenue you have to start cutting programs. And once you start cutting programs you run into the problem that SOMEONE thinks that that particular is not "excessive".

Don't link to generalities. Show the specifics. What to cut and by how much.

This is you spouting generalities. "Taxes" is a generality. "Someone" is a generality.

Here's a specific:

How about if we cut the free ObamaPhone program [thehill.com] by 100%? If you want a mobile phone, buy one. If you need a charity-provided mobile phone, go get one from a charity. Don't hire your government to tax your neighbors' paychecks or your neighbors' phone bills so you can free-ride.

"Excessive taxes" include every cent used to pay for the ObamaPhone program. If this program were eliminated, taxes would be

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

So you've done a cost analysis on the comparative costs of life line subsidizes cost on wireline versus wireless systems then? Do you even know why we subsidize lifeline phone service? Here's a hint, because its cheaper than not doing it. Also, (since you've done your research) you know its funded by Universal Service Funds and not from taxation or the general appropriations fund. Since you know all of this I'll provide these links for the less informed following the conversation.

I was thinking about eliminating the Department of Education first. Merge Commerce, Agriculture,and HHS. If you really want an Education department, merge it into Labor. You could also merge Labor and Commerce, as they were up to 1913 or so.

Merge DHS into Justice as an extension of the FBI.

You could put Energy into Commerce also.

Now, to complete the initial reduction, radically overhaul the tax code and put half the IRS out of work, along with a third of the CPAs and corporate counsel. These are clever people, and will find a job on K Street if nowhere else.

Disbanding Social Security, Medicare, and such requires decades, as current/prospective retirees are locked into these programs. Leaving Medicaid to the States would not take much. The ACA is a major impediment, bit if we did all of the above, then we are probably killing the ACA also.

None of this will happen unless there is a cultural change in Washington, which is probably only going to happen when a third political party achieves significant victories in elections and changes the dynamic. I'm mildly optimistic, but very mildly.

Feel free to argue any of those points, but don't just make up stuff. Far too often (if not "always") there is no debate on the issues... just "but what about the children/unborn". Whatever.

I notice the tea party doesn't refer to religion, it's all about cutting government spending, but tea partiers also tend to be the loudest global warming deniers, largely because actually doing something about global warming requires spending and/or legislation/regulation, which is in conflict with their ideology. But heres the thing...what exactly do they mean by "scientific literacy?" That'll make a huge difference. Are we talking about sciency material that we learned in high school, or are we talking

Overall, Tea Party member are better educated and wealthier than the average American.

If you shed your prejudice, this shouldn't surprise you at all. Politically active people in general tend to be so either because they're interested in the mechanics of politics, or because they have a significant stake in the system.

That's in noticeable contrast to those who show up at "rallies", but don't vote, don't volunteer for a candidate come election season, and wonder why they're ignored by politics even though they're shouting just as loud.

The Tea Party gets press every week. Remember those "occupy" guys - yeah, neither does the press. There's a reason for that.

Remember those "occupy" guys - yeah, neither does the press. There's a reason for that.

Yes, there is indeed a reason. The reason is that the media companies (that is, those companies that a massive majority of people get their "news" and information from) are owned by a few large companies, who are in turn owned by very wealthy people. The whole point of Occupy was to protest the laws and government policies that are specifically set up to benefit very wealthy people and large corporations at the expense of everyone else. Why would a very wealthy owner of a large media corporation want to highlight something that hurts their bottom line, when they can instead just let everyone forget about it after spinning it to make it sound like it's all just a bunch of homeless hippies who wanted an excuse to sleep on a park bench (that was a pretty insignificant minority, but of course it's what the media highlighted)?

largely because actually doing something about global warming requires spending and/or legislation/regulation, which is in conflict with their ideology.

You've got it backwards. That astroturf "movement" was funded and assisted so that large numbers of people that opposed the regulations that Koch and the other funders disliked could be bussed in to protests to give an appearance of a lot of support. The people that organised the transport, media releases etc were not "Tea Partiers" themselves but professionals paid to create events. Most of the tea party was literally a rented crowd which is why it has no cohesion and nobody within doing much in the way of organising anything. Left alone they do not appear to be able to organise a drunken party in a brewery.I'm not knocking the individuals who stand for whatever they do, but instead that it's a disorganised mob that cancel each other out and ultimately don't really stand for anything. They are a weird "only in America" footnote whose time passed once the adult supervision driving the busses decided to do something else.

The ironies are many, the largest of which are the strident calls for replacing the United States with the sort of fuedalistic system that the Boston tea party was a protest against. "Getting the government out of people's lives" really means letting the rich and powerful run a country without interference from the people - just like those English Lords could do.

They also don't know enough history to understand that they are calling for a system where they are run by Dukes and Earls and a Monarch with very loose control over all it it - the sort of thing George Washington saved them from. That's their "small government" - all hail King Koch!

Huh? George Washington lost to the French who were the only ones still operating with a system ran by Dukes, Earls (actually they didn't have Earls) and a Monarch who thought he was appointed by God.Now the English at the time of George Washington had a Parliament who was partially elected (the elected House controlled the purse) by the land owners and larger renters but was in need of electoral reform with whole cities without representation and ridings (electoral districts) with only a couple of voters who were quite happy to sell their vote to a rich business man. It had been 80 years since the last King who thought he was appointed by God was booted out by Parliament which finally was in undisputed control (The Supremacy of Parliament). So the King had about the same political power as the current Queen though he was more vocal. The Lords did have one house of Parliament so they could slow down and affect the democratic process and do things like push for limited copyright when the elected people were going to make it forever.It was Parliament that enacted the laws that pissed off the colonists, a partially elected Parliament who did not represent the colonists and truthfully represented the rich, who were a mixture of business men who didn't want competition and landed gentry who thought they were special because of their parents.

Don't blame them for taking advantage of a free taxpayer provided lunch.. its the electorate who are asleep at the switch and tolerate it. Its HIGH time we organized ourselves and get a government in place which represents the electorate, not just the special interest groups.

They will try to keep their stuff secret, just as a kiddie porn collector will do. Its up to the voters to DEMAND open government, and be willing

The "effin' difference"? In most cases, it is far, far easier to "throw the bums out" at a local level, where getting word out and mobilizing the citizenry is way easier to do. The local "bums" don't have the massive reservoir of money and consultants to get them out of a jam like the national office-holders do. You screw up as a local official, and you can almost count on being ejected from office.

The smaller the population, the more an official has to be attuned to the cares and whims of the people he ost

If people are that venal when their constituents can actually show up at their house and complain, what makes you think that the ones with more power over more money, with less direct interaction with the voters, are more honest?

Local government is easier to influence, however. Your vote in State and national elections have zero impact when taken on its own. In a local election, you actually stand a chance of making a difference. The problem is when people choose not to attempt making a difference.

The federal government is basically a coalition of the fortune 100 corporations. The larger and more toxic to liberty it gets, the more power the 1% has over the rest of us. It's better to have a coalition of smaller governments as it makes it a lot harder to keep them all infiltrated enough. Also, the local interests of the population take precedence over the interests of people thousands of miles away, protecting the local values and interests of that section of society.

While centralized systems offer some advantages to this, a critical fault is that they have one point of failure.. kick it there, and it's yours for the pilfering. The founders knew that there are benefits to both, and that's why we have a system with both. However, in recent years the fed has gotten too large and too influential in too many areas for state governments to resist. "Do as we say on X, otherwise no funding for your Y" rules the day.

Today, the liberals draw more political power to the state with things like encroaching tax, identity politics, censorship, and other marxist tenets, while the neocons use that power to keep market cornering laws, passed for the benefit of their lobbyists, enforced. This includes things like tax loopholes, leaving the rest of us with the bill. Meanwhile corporates 'agree' to fund the liberals' identity politics campaigns and allow leftist politics into their corporate employee behavioral policies. This reenforces the left's voter base and keeps them coming back to the polls (vote for us or you'll lose your 'rights'!). The result is that both parties punch each other with one hand while patting each other on the back with the other, each supporting the other's interests while the rest of us lose our liberty to these very influential minority populations. Who walks away laughing to the bank? That top 1% liberals are always complaining about. Walking down the campaign funding tree to the largest donations, a lot of the names become the same across both parties. 'Why?' becomes an important question here.

The Republican party is actually very slit up.You have the evangelicals, these are the Anti-Science People, their religion tells them that science is wrong, and they should follow only what the bible says. these guys swinged republican, to stand against the abortion issue, then they got more power, now they are the Anti-Science wing to the Republican Party.You have the big Business men, These guys may know a good deal about Science and Technology, However they have earned a lot of money and they just don't

You mean it conforms to the stereotype promoted by liberals. Not the same thing.

"So when the people who are "conservative" but not "tea party" are included with the people who are "liberal" then that group scores worse than the group that is "tea party"."

No. If you look at his actual comments [culturalcognition.net], you will see that he found no significant difference in Cognitive Reflection Test scores between liberals and conservatives. He DID find a significantly higher score in those who identify with the Tea Party.

So get off your liberal high horse. I have found this smug attitude about IQ on the part of liberals to be [1] not supported by the actual data (see the link above for yet another bit of evidence), [2] unjustified, in my personal experience, and [3] old, tiresome, and offensive.

No, it isn't. This is about the Cognitive Reflection Test, which is correlated with IQ, and which has no direct relationship to education. Do I detect a hint of Dunning-Kruger showing through?

"At least read that link you posted all the way to the end."

I did. He claims that the difference is "trivially small", yet elsewhere he shows that it is statistically significant. I'll stick with the numbers rather than his opinion, thanks very much! He even admits that his opinion has been biased. So I'll adhere to the science.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Neither can he. Statistically significant and "trivially small" are mutually incompatible. One is science, and the other is opinion, and they are in conflict. Given that, I'll go with the statistics. Also, saying in effect "I wouldn't be surprised if it reversed" does not lead to the conclusion you appear to assume; perhaps he thinks they will undergo a shift in membership.

"Like I said, lies, damn lies and statistics. Understand what you're measuring and how to measure it."

From what you have written in the last couple of comments, I am pretty confidant that I understand it better than you do.

Your very choice of numbering indicates a bias. But let's leave that aside for now. While what you say is not false, you present it in a very misleading way. To avoid confusion, I'm going to call them 1, 2, and 3, because they are 3 distinct subgroups of the sample population.

He compared 1 to the population as a whole, and 2 to the population as a whole, and found no significant difference between the results. He then compared 3 to the population as a whole, and found a significant difference.

You are presenting 2 and 3 as 2a and 2b as though there is some kind of statistical impropriety or shenanigans going on. He compared each of the 3 groups to the population as a whole, as is right and proper. Your insinuation that there is something wrong or weird about the way it was divided up is just so much hot air. If he had not compared each against the whole population, then there would have been something strange; but such is not the case.

In fact, his own statements show that what you seem to be implying is false. He states:

"It turns out that there is about as strong a correlation between scores on the science comprehension scale and identifying with the Tea Party as there is between scores on the science comprehension scale and Conservrepub.

Except that it has the opposite sign." [emphasis mine]

Clearly, then, any implied "bias" that might arise from combining your "2a" and "2b" is more than made up for by the difference in scores.

One is your typical American-style libertarians -- essentially anarcho-capitalists, or at least somewhere in that corner.

But one of their key issues is slashing taxes. And wealthy people and corporations love that, so they pump a ton of money into "tea party" astroturf groups (like the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity) that use fear and hatred to boost membership. Which is the side of the group that hits the media hard of course, because that's where all